Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Raja Shivachhatrapati by Babasaheb Purandare in the article Shivaji (Indian history bio)

The following book is the source for no less than 29 footnotes in the article Shivaji (the founder of the Maratha Empire in 17th century India). I'm not easily able to specify exactly what is being cited, because it's huge portions of the article, and the claimed source doesn't seem readily available online.

Babasaheb Purandare (August 2003). Raja Shivachhatrapati (Marathi: राजा शिवछत्रपती) (15 ed.). Pune: Purandare Prakashan.

This one is a little sticky since we don't have a clear online version of this book, and from what I understand of the footnote they're citing the edition in the Marathi language. That said, I'd like to address Purandare as a non-RS based on critical mention of him in books by reliable academics. It is my contention that Purandare is a "pop historian" and historical novelist, who should not be considered an authoritative source on Indian history. This is an important issue to Shivaji both since the book is cited so heavily there, and due to serious concerns about the author's POV. The following are critical comments about Purandare's work, particularly that covering Shivaji, and indications of the Reliability of persons making said comments:

• He, further, finds the noted historian Babasaheb Purandare's treatment of history as steeped in encomium and idol-worship and in the tradition of such chroniclers of Maratha history as Sabhasad. Chitragupta, and Chitnees.
  • El. Es Deśapāṇḍe (2005). Narhar Kurundkar. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-81-260-2039-3.
  • (note Sahitya Akademi is India's "National Academy of Letters", so publication by them says good things for RS of the criticiser Desapande)
• Still one will say that Babasaheb Purandare should not be on the committee. The reasons for that lie not in the fact that Purandare is a Brahmin, but because Purandare's presentation of Shivaji is through and through communal.
  • Ram Puniyani (2010). Communal Threat to Secular Democracy. Gyan Publishing House. pp. 302–. ISBN 978-81-7835-861-1.
  • Gyan is not a great publisher, but assuming they're quoting Puniyani accurately, he appears to be a reputable human rights advocate
• Maratha Seva Sangh leader Shrimant Kokate... and blames the popular Brahmin writer Babsaheb Purandare for fostering these misconceptions through his books, plays, novels, and films...
  • Matthew N. Schmalz; Peter Gottschalk (6 May 2011). Engaging South Asian Religions: Boundaries, Appropriations, and Resistances. SUNY Press. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-1-4384-3323-3.
• In consideration of B. M. Purandare's work, writer [Laine] says that fictional enrichment is the speciality of Babasaheb Purandare . And pointed out the aim of Babasaheb Purandare is, "veneration of the hero Shivaji through the retelling of his epic...
  • Anant V. Darwatkar (2005). Shivaji Maharaja: Maratha Chhatrapati In Bharat-varsha : Shivaji : Hindu king in Islamic India" by J.W. Laine/2003 : false and fluid one. Shree Shambhu Prerana Pakashan.
  • This one's a bit sticky, because the publication is one criticising author James Laine (widely hated by some Marathas for "busting their bubble" for "defaming" Shivaji in his historical presentations), but the gist is that Laine called Purandare a hack. James Laine, for what it's worth, is a professor of Religion at MacAlester college, so in a scuffle betwen Laine way over in the UK with a Phd and a popular novelist who happens to live in the home region of the subject of his works, I'd assume Laine is both the more professional and the more neutral party.

This is just an introductory stab, but are folks so far agreeing that Purandare is a novelist, not a historian, and should not be the go-to source (29 footnotes!) for a high-profile article, particularly when this topic is covered exhaustively by any number of PhD authors? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but why does the Times of India refer to him as "noted history scholar Babasaheb Purandare"? [1]--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because ToI isn't any kind of authority on academic credentials. Equally importantly, along the lines of "show, don't tell", they don't bother to give any kind of information whatsoever as to what makes him a "noted history scholar". Phd? Books published by universities? Respected international lecturer? Nope, he's just a guy who really, really, really likes Shivaji and has written a lot of popular books. If you have any evidence that anyone outside of India takes him seriously as an author academic historian, please do provide it. Best as I can tell, the main people who hold him in such veneration are other people who really, really, really like Shivaji. I'm sure Purandare writes some great vivid accounts and makes history come alive and all that, but a cracking good read does not an RS make. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. A news source mention in many articles is not a qualification in itself. And I do not find a biography showing any actual credentials. As far as I can see there is no reference to him in any formal manner like this: [2]--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left neutrally-phrased notifications of this RSN post at Talk:Babasaheb Purandare, Talk:Shivaji, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India, and on the talk pages of all registered users (barring those blocked/banned) from the last two months of edits on Shivaji and as far back as April 2012 on Talk:Shivaji. I'd really like to get a strong consensus on this, so as to be able to remove those 29 flawed footnotes without getting into an edit war. I've already removed 20 or so sources that were clearly non-RS, including 16 individual citations to a costume-drama TV serial (!), and Purandare is the most significant remaining shaky source. Shivaji is #72 on the list of Most popular India-related pages on WP, with over 100,000 hits per month, so this is an article worth cleaning up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• The page has a large number of references, but I'm a little concerned that this is the only one in Marathi, and the topic is clearly of interest to Marathi speakers. I suggest that the article could be improved by (a) moving the source from the references into the 'Depiction in popular culture' section; (b) considering whether there are other Marathi sources that could be used and (c) adding Marathi-language further reading (or viewing) to the 'Depiction in popular culture'. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely no objections to Purandare's book being listed in "Depictions". So far as using Marathi sources, while on technical merits I'd have no objections against using Marathi sources by qualified academic historians, we have both the issue that only a limited number of editors at en.wiki would be able to read/verify Marathi sources, and also that I would imagine that the most serious historical works on Shivaji are either available in English translation, or are written in English or Hindi so as to reach a wider academic audience. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I'd venture to guess that there are a lot of popular works on Shivaji in Marathi, and academic works on him, by Marathi, other Indian, and non-Indian academics, in English. All things being equal, it would be best to have Marathi sources and further reading on mr.wiki and English ones on en.wiki where practical. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly encourage editors to read WP:HISTRS and consider this author (and his publisher) in the context of that advice. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it is only the advice of one or more editors in the form of an essay and not considered guidline.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I encourage reading of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) in conjunction with WP:CRYSTAL, because taken together they remove the need consult with non peer-review sources completely. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason why many of us wrote HISTRS was that we kept answering the same kind of questions in the same kinds of way on RS/N :) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable. MV has provided a decent analysis, which my own ferreting around supports. The man is a "historian" only in the loosest sense and he is a communal writer. Please bear in mind that "communal" in the Indian sense does not mean "collegial" etc - it means sectarian, caste-ist. As with James Tod and Rajasthan, he is much admired for his dubious scholarship in the state most associated with his subject matter (Maharashtra) but has little support throughout the other 99% of the world. Stick him in "Popular culture" as a regional folk-lorist and sectarian who holds non-mainstream, sometimes actually fringe, views.

BTW, one of the problems with Marathi history articles is the propensity for socking, especially by Mrpontiac1 and Dewan357. Bearing in mind the constraints of WP:NOENG, any Marathi-language sources will require careful review by experienced editors and the likelihood of edit warring is considerable. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Matthew, I have friends who have B.M. Purandare's books. Let me have a look at them and get back to the group. As I wrote sometime before, BM should be regarded as popular historian because that is how he described himself in a meeting in UK 24 years ago.

Lokmanya Tilak, the early Indian Nationalist leader was the first to popularize Shivaji, the legend. He could have chosen Bajirao I, the actual builder of the Maratha empire who also happened to belong to the same brahmin sub-caste as Tilak. However, Shivaji had a broader appeal across the Marathi castes and beyond. BM has continued this tradition of building up Shivaji, the National hero of Marathi People and of Hindu people. Anyhow, before get carried away let me stop and get back to the group shortly. By Jonathansammy (couldn't get the digital signature)

Matthew V, After doing some research, Here are my comments on using Bm Purandare as a reliable reference: 1. BM is a novel writer whose stories are based mostly on the life and times of Shivaji. 2. He relies on published research on Shivaji and more importantly, stories transmitted orally over generations by Marathi families about Shivaji to help write his stories. I am sure the second point would disqualify him as RS. In my opinion, BM definitely has a place in an article on Shivaji but only in a section titled "Shivaji in contemporary arts and literature". Thanks Jonathansammy (once again the website is not allowing me to place my digital signature)

Thanks for looking into it Jonathan. I think we're pretty much on the same page here: he's a successful popular writer, and while he may be channeling the mythos in the popular culture, he's not an actual "go to the Delhi archives and read Persian records" actual academic kind of historian. Definitely agree he should be listed in the "Literature" section as a very Notable writer on the subject, but not actually used as a source. I'll wait until the end of this week just to see if anyone else has objections, but failing that I'll remove the Purandare cites in the body of the article and replace them with academics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The decreasing references on page Shivaji led to this discussion here. The page is ranked #212 and not #72 as mentioned incorrectly. Not to mention weasel words like "It is my contention", "my own ferreting around supports", etc.

There are many incorrect assertions on the discussions that I would like to address here:

1. "(note Sahitya Akademi is India's "National Academy of Letters", so publication by them says good things for RS of the criticiser Desapande)"- by which rule or is it hearsay? Sahitya Academy publishes many things and to say such a thing as a random observation means that people do not know much really.
2. About Ram Punyani - his academic credentials are not stellar, he is mainly into some Human rights org. Rather one should avoid such references other than any need of human rights or Hindu terrorism that his views are about.
3. The academic credential of Maratha Seva Sangh leader Shrimant Kokate is mentioned in the link as well which is not more than one webpage. How he is mentioned in a book published by "SUNY series in Hindu Studies" is surprising considering his one web page academic credential is suspect. All in all a very poor citation.
4. Anant V. Darwatkar - how academic is he? Is he a political writer? Not clear here - again a very poor choice to mention.
5. About Laine author, a critique link, the Author and Oxford Publishing come out terribly as far as credential go. Examples in the article are "shoddy polemics", "re-examine its commissioning policy", "as no evidence has been adduced or offered", "Laine is an anti-Hindu hypocrite", "Laine exposes his agenda", "lacked a modern sense of identity", "Hindus of the era cannot be ceded to have had a sense of 'Hindu' identity.", "it did not once mention Shivaji's famed ambition to establish a Hindu Pad Padshahi", "strange omission", "most notable omission is of the poet Bhushan", "juvenile", "subscribes to the secularist school of historiography that decrees that Hindus must forget the evil done to them, a phenomenon Dr. Koenraad Elst calls negationism.", and so on and on. Meaning another motivated author who omits as per his views. Not to mention controversy around the book he wrote that was banned and then the ban was lifted etc - which does not add to his credentials in any way.

As such this discussion does not deserve to continue.111.91.75.146 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

By "doesn't deserve to continue", are you claiming that we should consider Purandare as an RS? If that's the case, you've proved absolutely nothing of the sort. We've found a few mentions of Purandare online, generally negative, and though you've made some cogent criticisms or the anti-Purandare sourcing, you've given nothing whatsoever supporting Purandare. We don't necessarily need negative evidence against Purandare, though it helps, but the thus-far lack of positive reporting on Purandare's historical accuracy is not encouraging. I'll note that the article Shivaji previously cited a serial drama sixteen times, so I think it's totally legitimate to take a hard look at its sourcing.

As far as the criticism of Laine you cite, given how astute you've been in picking apart the cites given here I find it quite inconsistent that you cite a Hindutva organisation as making Laine and Oxford University Press "come out terribly as far as credentials go." I doubt neutral editors would consider a sectarian politico-religious outfit as a serious critic of books published by one of the planet's most prestigious universities. Yet more inconsistent, you knock Puniyani for being just a human rights advocate, but the author of the review, Dr. Sandhya Jain, is listed as a "Social Development Consultant and Columnist" (not a historian) and is an editorialist for the conservative Pioneer newspaper.

Thus far, you have minor counter-criticisms, and your counter-criticisms are generally from less-reliable sources than the criticisms presented in the first place. Again, as far as anyone here can tell, Purandare is a writer of "popular history", not a historian, and thus appears to have no validity as an RS on the topic of Shivaji, particularly since we have so many other authors available, and he should be removed from the footnotes but remain as an important author of the "Legacy" section. If you have any evidence that Purandare is authoritative, please present it, but such should be positive review from serious academics, not accolades from the reading public and politicians in Shivaji's home state. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his writings qualify as reliable sources for historical facts. From what I can gather, he is a popular historian and dramatist and does not publish in peer reviewed journals or journals with academic credentials. I don't, for example, see any article by him on JSTOR. References in published works to Purandare allude to his role in pushing the "cult of Shivaji" rather than to his scholarship (fanatical follower of Shivaji. Purandare can and should probably be quoted and referred to in an article or section about the cult of Shivaji in Maharashtra, but not for historical facts. --regentspark (comment) 02:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been two weeks with one single drive-by objection which was not followed up on, and several experienced editors concurring that Purandare is not a WP:RS for historical topics. Accordingly, I have removed all 28 Purandare cites in Shivaji. Thanks for everyone's participation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Patt: GAN vetting

The article on jazz-guitarist Ralph Patt cites

1. Death Record (one of several websites providing the USA's Social-Security death registry on-line) for the date/location of birth and death (2010). (For $1500 USD, you can buy the SS database and verify it yourself.)
2. a death notice in a Yahoo newsgroup for jazz-guitarists for the cause of death (kidney cancer) and as a secondary source for the death date. It is also cited as a secondary source for Patt's having authored an on-line book for musicians. It is used a few times also as a supplementary (secondary) source for a few facts with RSes.

Reader Drmies has commented that these seem unlikely to be challenged, and their use is limited, but suggested that I ask for second opinions here.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Patt's website published his Vanilla book, which contains the chord progressions for four hundred jazz standards, from "After you've gone" to "Zing! went the strings". Its title refers to "Just play the vanilla changes", Lester Young's advice to aspiring pianists. It was updated in 2008.
Having been diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2007, Ralph Oliver Patt died at the age of 80 on 6 October 2010 in Canby, Oregon.

A death record can be used to establish date of death if you can indisputably link the person to the subject of the article. That is a bit problematic here since you are taking both date of birth and date of death from that source. Your linkage is then based on the name, year of birth, and location (near Portland), all of which are, in turn, linked to the subject of the article by other sources. I have no position on the issue. You should cite the Oregon death record database as your source, with the weblink you have added as a convenience link. The Yahoo-groups posting is user-generated content, and we have no way of even verifying who that user is. It is not an RS; anybody can join any group and post there. Churn and change (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Two days earlier, editor Drmies discussed these issues on his talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have other sources which mention his social security number so you can tie the death record to him directly? That would help. The linkage via name, year of birth, and location (near Portland) is, I think passable, but if somebody disputes it, I will have to say the objection is reasonable. For the Yahoo newsgroup, neutrality is not the issue here; there is the problem of accuracy. People frequently post what they heard from others there. There isn't a single obituary for the subject? Can you find out the exact place where he died? If possible the name of the local newspaper? I can see if an archive of their articles is accessible. Churn and change (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A new reference notes a memorial scholarship to a jazz music summer-camp in Oregon, after he died of cancer in 2010. This is not Billboard, but it is signed and it appears to be a regular non-laughable Oregon periodical.

I've Googled a few times, and didn't find anything. But it appears that more Patt information is indexed by Google every time I check. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you should probably use that resource for reason of death. Newspaper archives are typically not indexed by Google. The idea is if one knows the place of death and date of death, then one can expect an obituary in the local rag the next day or a few days later. Just by looking at a few archived issues, one should be able to hit something. For a GA-nominated article standards are high, whatever policy and guidelines say. Churn and change (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There was at least one other site (for genealogists) that dumped the SS data.

I shall look some more for Oregon newspapers. High beam didn't have anything. Update: Alas The Oregonian and its link to a database of Pacific (and USA) obituaries had nothing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pavelić Unmasked - Pavelic bez maske

This is a documentary heavily referenced (21 times) in the Ante Pavelić article. The documentary is actually a filmed pro-Ustashe blog about Pavelić without any credibility. It offers only a polished narrative story about that psychopath and terrorist which way Wikipedia gets plunged indirectly into a backward political propaganda. Posted on YouTube as Pavelić bez maske. It belongs to a cheap entertainment genre which, per se, cannot be used as a credible reference. About the documentary values speaks the fact that there were just 265 viewers who wasted some time watching it out of which only one likes it and five dislike. --Juraj Budak (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Without judging the publisher and actual content I would note that the very name suggests the blatant unreliability of the source. The "unmasked" cliché (as well as "real" or "true" clichés, which are essentially identical) is abused by tabloids and other cheap sensation-oriented press, and for that reason is consistently avoided elsewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There was a thread on the talkpage of the article regarding the reliability of the source. I have posted there to direct to this discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the source is being discussed there already, where it has been questioned from a WP:V perspective. I have no view other than those given on the article talk page, but I note that how many people watch a video on YouTube and how many like it is completely irrelevant to its reliability, as is the wording used in the title. The opinions here should be based on credible reviews of the documentary and its scholarly credentials. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, voice of people is voice of God. Not a single credible review was referenced before introducing and using this 'documentary' as a reference. It's at a level of many Ustashe blogs we could find on the Internet. Moreover, scholars are not wasting their time on reviewing 'documentaries' of this type. The 'documentary' is worth of its price - zero.--Juraj Budak (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I must say this is the first time I have seen God cited for reliability (on Wikipedia anyway). So barring divine intervention, it's your unsourced opinion then? Let me make this clear, I don't like the source myself, but I'm stuffed if anything that has been posted here so far qualifies as a reason why the thing isn't reliable. I'll put some actual effort into looking into it, but there is little I can do if the reference is not in English. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have identified a possible lead on this documentary. The Australian Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), which is effectively a multicultural state broadcaster, appears to have podcast or broadcast this film at some stage, but I lack the language skills to follow it up. Here is the link [3] or [4] which appears to be an interview with Sedlar regarding the film by an SBS journalist. Could someone with the language skills try to see what if anything SBS said about it? Thanks. I'll keep looking. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• What appears to be an article about films made about the NDH here [5] mentions Sedlar a couple of times. Needs language skills. Also this one which appears scholarly (not historical scholarly, but media scholarly). [6] (needs external source help to get access). Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This source describes Sedlar's work "Four by Four" as a "barefaced... promotion of ethnophobia". [7]. This one is not particularly complementary. [8]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

History Commons

I've been gnoming on references at Yasin al-Qadi and found a number of citations to History Commons. The site purports to be open-content but "All submissions are peer-reviewed by other users before being published." I could not discover information on contributors or reviewers of content on the site, despite its CC-BY-NC-SA license. Frankly, it looks unreliable to me, but I'd like others' opinions here as a sanity check before I take further action. alanyst 07:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The peer reviewers are "Content Editors" who have been vetted previously. The qualifications and selection process aren't listed, and since these are volunteers it is hard to see how they would attract all that many experts willing in to put in time to do fact checking. Moreover, whatever they report must already be available in other reliable sources, so we should cite those sources directly. The site would be useful for article research. Churn and change (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yasin al-Qadi's biography is full of extraordinary claims due to the relationship between him and the United States. Extraordinary claims should not be cited to History Commons regardless of its reliability or unreliability for other matters, as History Commons is not an extraordinarily good source. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. alanyst 20:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Daily Mail a reliable source for Lord Ahmed's views?

I want to use a Daily Mail article Grooming of girls by Asian gangs fuelled by unhappy arranged marriages to cousins claims Muslim peer by someone called "Abdul Taher" as a source to support this statement:

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham has suggested that cousin marriages among British Pakistanis may be a reason for such sex crimes. A large number of young British Pakistanis get forced into marrying their cousins from abroad, and Ahmed suggests that the resultant unhappy marriage drives them towards vulnerable teens.

in the article Rochdale sex trafficking gang. The reliability of DM has been questioned at Talk:Rochdale sex trafficking gang#Lord Ahmed. Is the given source a reliable source for the given statement?OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That newspaper is known and indeed knocked for its attitude towards immigrants to Britain and to the Asian diaspora within the country. Its editorial position is dubious, it often does present a narrow, cherry-picked position and I seem to recall that it has lost even more court cases for libel etc than The Sun. I wouldn't use it, despite its large circulation etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A better question would have been 'Is Daily Mail a reliable source for Lord Ahmed's views as represented by this edit [9]', but given the DM's reputation for sensationalism, the question is probably moot anyway. A simple search for 'Lord Ahmed' on their website [10] reveal such shit-stirring drivel as the headline "Accusations against Lord Ahmed merely highlight a vile anti-British career". Regarding Lord Ahmed, the DM is about as useless a source as they come... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• The Daily Fail is not a reliable source for anything. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DM will generally accurately quote people - but where the material is not presented with a quote, there have been times the DM has chosen the most "interesting" view of the words. In short - using the DM for quotes is generally fine. Using it for non-controversial claims is fine (in fact, it does very well in many areas - but "Page Six" stuff is not one of their finest areas.) And for straightforward facts - it is generally fine as well. It has not, by the way, been sued more than other newspapers, nor lost more cases (even The Times has been sued many times), and the "libel tourist" phenomenon is notable in the UK. Collect (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact here is that the Daily Mail has repeatedly gone out of its way to trash Lord Ahmed's reputation, and we shouldn't use it as a source here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My view is reliability is a continuum based on what is cited, author, publication and article context, with few publications at 0 or infinity. My opinion is the Daily Mail is really low on that continuum whatever be the other elements; you may use it as a source for some obscure, uncontroversial quote but for pretty much nothing else. It is a tabloid, known not to be neutral (though that itself may not affect reliability of reportage), and viewed as sensationalist. Churn and change (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly hesitiate to use the Daily Mail for anything, though that is not to say that one should never use their sources. If what they write is of consequence, it will also appear in the quality press. If it does not appear there, then ask yourself why it has not appeared. If there is a good reason the source has all the other hallmarks of being reasonable then use it with caution. Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It meets rs, but we are supposed to use the best sources available, and we need to establish that the lord's comments are significant. TFD (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes they need to be WP:notable. But also I think what some people are suggesting is that it is possible to argue that we should not use a source for other reasons. There is an old discussion about how to best word the policy pages, and in a nutshell I think the point is that just because something is an RS, we do not need to use it. The consensus is that accepting a source, or rejecting a source, require different types of consideration. For removing a source, WP:Neutral is one of the most important things to keep in mind. But removing an RS because it is in conflict with other RS's is not an unreasonable argument, especially if it is not an extremely widely discussed source, and this would be up to editors of an article to discuss. Just to take a simple example, even the best sources contain obvious typos and errors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, I recall a recent incident (the Amanda Knox appeal) in which they published a story in 'advance' and included fake quotes. When news outlets start publishing fake stories and quotes I think you have to draw the line. If these are indeed Lord Ahmed's views I am sure they have been published elsewhere, given that this is such a high profile story in the UK. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8291361/Asian-men-who-groom-young-girls-frustrated-by-arranged-marriages-peer-warns.html, So rather then slagging mof the Daily mail for inacuracey, at least try to see it it's inaccurate.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, comparison to other British papers seems a reasonable idea for example, at least if anyone is really strongly defending inclusion of this in our article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

there is also the issue of WP:SYN which appears pretty rampant in the article. the original DM article places the Ahmed quote specifically in relation to incidents in three locales, none of which is Rocheford (my geography is bad, so I dont know if Rocheford is a known subset of "Derby, Blackburn and Lord Ahmed’s home town of Rotherham ), and was made prior to this trial, was this incident in the public at the time the quote was made? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis, at least the way we normally discuss it here, is not a problem at all for our sources, as long as they are reliable. We expect them synthesize for us. That is what makes some of them "secondary". Where we normally try to avoid synthesis is in our justifications for INCLUDING information in WP. But, whether sythesis may be used in order to argue for NOT including something is a finer point, and it can be a valid argument in some cases, particularly if the source is not of the highest reputation, and also if the story involves relatively minor details of living people's lives.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed's comments are appropriate for inclusion in the article ONLY if we know he was specifically speaking about the event in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has gone past us a bit, but relevance is perhaps an important point which I hope will be considered.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the Daily Telegraph report as far as applies to Ahmed appears to be a rehash of the Daily Mail report and published a day after. Neither paper specifically reports Ahmed directly as using the word "cousins". Emeraude (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I see this more as a weight thing than as a reliability thing. The Mail interviewed Ahmed, and they don't misquote him otherwise he would have complained. However. They have added a lot of their own spin, which we would have to disregard completely, especially the cousins aspect. If he didn't mention cousin marriage at all and they have gone so far as to put it in the headline, that doesn't look good for them. And they add a point about health concerns in first cousin marriage, which although it's been reported elsewhere, has nothing to do with this story at all. Look, I'd be surprised if Lord Ahmed's views on this were notable enough to include. He isn't an expert, and his comments weren't widely reported. Also, his view is out of line with mainstream research-based thinking on sexual violence - he sees it as arising from sexual frustration, whereas actually it's about power. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their kind attention and informative comments. I am agreeable to disregarding any spin that DM might have put on Lord Ahmed's views, however we can do better. Thanks to Slatersteven, we now have the Telegraph source. I concede hands down that the Telegraph is a much better source and should be used. It does seem to include comments from Lord Ahmed which mention cousin marriage. I have explained on the article talk page why including a discussion of cousin marriage is essential. I hope it is OK to use the Telegraph source for the "cousin marriage" point? Again, thanks and regards to everyone. You guys are the best!!!OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. This is the reliable sources noticeboard. The question asked was whether the Daily Mail was a reliable source for the material proposed. It has made clear that it isn't. That is all that has been decided here. As Itsmejudith makes clear above, there is a question of weight too - particularly in regard to an article about particular individuals, none of which are stated to have been married to cousins. How can it possibly be 'essential' to discuss something which may well be entirely irrelevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The question now is whether that particular DT story is reliable for the proposed statement. I would say no. For one thing, the article derives from the interview that Lord Ahmed gave to the DM. That implies that the DM should be our source, even though generally the DT is a more serious newspaper than the DM. The next main question is whether Lord Ahmed's views are relevant to this topic. I don't think so. What expertise does he have? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And again - the quotes themselves should be allowed in any case - it is only any possible editorial spin which is not proper from the DM. In the case at hand, it certainly appears that the sources are solid at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is reliable for lots of things, and the Mail for some things. Here, we have an interview with Lord Ahmed. Why are we interested in his speculation? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, are we certain that his speculations were about the subject topic of the article or merely something kind of close and that his thoughts being used in a manner that is inappropriate speculation on our part. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems likely the DM was correct - see BBC [11], [12] also seems to have an interesting view of the gentleman. Collect (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, don't be a complete imbecile - the 'dawn' article is repeating material that even the Daily Mail had to correct after reporting [13]. (see also what the BBC had to say on the subject [14])AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And while you are at it, read what the BBC report you cite actually says (though I'm not sure whether the 'Mr Ahmed' they quote might be a typo, from the context)... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the overall conclusion is that DM can be used as an RS for things like quotes and such. If not, I would say that we are out of touch with the world around us. If a source like Telegraph regards DM as reliable for quotes, why won't we? The relevance and weight issues probably don't belong to this page and should be discussed on the article talk page..OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a predilection for seeing 'overall conclusions' your way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

... so do you.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check whether the claim the DM did get the quotes right for this one was correct or not; I see strong objections. Doesn't matter. Not being 100% unreliable isn't the criteria for reliability. For WP we should start with the best sources possible and work our way down if material is unavailable, not start with the bottom rung and then go up. For British newspapers that is the Times. Then there are others. And others. And more others. And after still more others there is the Daily Mail. Churn and change (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% that we should be using the best available source. I think it would be the Telegraph article in the present case. One advantage of using the Telegraph article would be that we can trust the Telegraph to have filtered out any spin which DM may have put on Lord Ahmed's comments.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are changing your mind yet again? One minute you say use the DM, the next you say use the Telegraph - and meanwhile you have failed to notice that the BBC seems to be quoting more recent statements by Lord Ahmed, where he apparently says that "Nobody knows the reason..." for the involvement of individuals in these cases. In any case, there is no consensus here that 'we should' use any source at all - that is an issue of weight, and not an issue for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. This is drifting off-topic and since the person who originally queried seems now to accept that the DM should not be used, well, I think we can close this thread. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not say DM should not be used. I said superior sources should be used when available. I mean to use the Telegraph preferentially, and DM for quotes only, and only when the same quotes are unavailable in Telegraph article.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am neutral on closing this discussion for other reasons, but please don't close it saying discussion is done. What OrangesRyellow is saying, that DM can be used for quotes not picked up by others, is not an undisputed conclusion on this thread. Typically it wouldn't be the words that are the concern (though I see even that seems to be contested); it is the context in which the words are presented (digging up old quotes after new events, for example) and selective quoting to present a non-neutral point of view. DM has been guilty of such in the past. Churn and change (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion can be closed. There is a new source on the article talk page which indicates that Lord Ahmed may have diluted his position on the issue. I no longer want to use Lord Ahmed as a proponent.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay is said in wiki-voice that it is an commercial website

Claim 0. The pirate bay is an commercial website. (written in the infobox). The current source to support that claim is this quote: "The ruling, which was harsher than many expected here, including the four who were convicted, stated that The Pirate Bay (TPB) founders were guilty of "extensive infringement of copyright law … in a commercial and organized form," said Thomas Nordström, chairman of the Stockholm district court". The quality of the source has been disputed for several days of discussion.

Today, additional sourced was provided: abcnews, law.com, and huffingtonpost.com. They state (in a identical copied section in each article): "Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling. The defendants have denied any commercial motives behind the site.".

Those sources looks verifiable about Judge Tomas Norstrom statement of how the court worked out the sentence, but is it enough as an source for the claimed text that says authoritivly that the site run today commercially? I am avoiding include the whole discussion from the talk page of the pirate bay article into here, but a insight of the reliability of the sources above would be interesting for the discussion and could help find a working solution to the dispute. Belorn (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A widely-reported court finding that the website is "commercially driven" appears to be a reliable source for such a claim. The site owners' denial of this needs to be taken with a fair amount of salt given its adverse legal implications for them. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Transparency is a major problem. TPB operators said the site was non-commercial but Swedish authorities discovered that Carl Lundström was channelling profits overseas to avoid honest accounting.^[15] They also solicited revenue from businesses that gained an unfair advantage by promoting their services on a popular website that distributed copyrighted works for free. The defense collapsed under careful examination of personal records and e-mails.^[16] We have no solid information who maintains TPB today or exactly where the site is hosted, yet Peter Sunde remains oddly confident that TPB will remain the worlds most resilient filesharing website that authorities will never be able to stop.I agree it would not be sensible to give both sides equal weight. — ThePowerofX 12:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So is the claim that "the pirate bay is an commercial website" (with no attribution to whom said it) verifiable and supported by those 3 sources? yes? no? Belorn (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Addtionally, if people have time, the following claims and sources would be interesting to hear an opinion on if they qualify as an reliable sources for the said claims. The above sources are closer to the heart of the dispute, but the below ones could also help in finding a solution.

Claim 1: The pirate bay has been described as an non-profit torrent sites.

"The Pirate Bay is the largest of several torrent sites that operate on a nonprofit basis and do not provide copyright materials, but provide means to find them." - dailytech.com published 2008.

"Adoption of this approach would make it easier for the record industry to sue music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay." - [http://w.networkinsight.org/verve/_resources/Record_CPRF08.pdf#page=372 ISBN 978-0-9804344-1-5 ] published 2008.

"A clause in the agreement(ACTA) allows governments to shut down websites associated with non-commercial copyright infringement, which was termed “the Pirate Bay killer” in the media has allegedly been removed." - independentsentinel.com published 2012.

"The ACTA is a paragraph which clearly stated that the 'non-profit' facilitation of copyrighted material on the Internet now punishable allowed. The Pirate Bay fits this description, as well as many other torrent sites." - pcmweb.nl, translated, published 2012.

All of the Claim 1 claims were made prior to the court ruling and were based upon the claims of the now convicted operators of the site as they were the only primary source.74.108.115.191 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Claim 2: The pirate bay claims that today the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles.

"Today the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles and can be contacted using the contact form. Using the site is free of charge for individuals however there are some restrictions." - The pirate bay about page , and copyred verbatim by sourcedigit.com

Article dedicated wholly to the question of the validity of pirate bay's claim. - arstechnica.com, published 209.

"Operated by an organization registered in the Seychelles, The Pirate Bay bills itself as the "world's largest tracker of BitTorrent files." " - cnn.com

"The owners of The Pirate Bay are unknown – but courts in the UK and other jurisdictions have moved against the site in spite of this. A Seychelles firm called Reservella Ltd has been claimed to be behind the site, according to the high court judgment handed down by Mr Justice Arnold on Monday, but this is disputed." - The Guardian.

Every single one of those sources has been disputed as not an reliable source for their claim. Belorn (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All of the primary sources for Claim 2 are anonymous. Anonymous is not a reliable resource.74.108.115.191 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The guardian is not Anonymous. The claim is about what the pirate bay has said, not the truth of the statement. Belorn (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact is that there was a dispute over commerciality of the site. But, there was a trial, two appeals, an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court, and all appeals failed. Appeals have been exhausted. There is no longer a legal dispute and it makes no sense to make the claim that commerciality is disputed. The state decides what is and is not commercial, the state made its ruling and there is no cite to suggest that they have reversed the finding. Anonymous sources and defendants sentenced to prison make poor sources. With respect, 74.108.115.191 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The trial was of the individuals concerned. Do you have any evidence that the court made a determination as to whether TPB was a commercial concern or not, or indeed that it was asked to do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Copying what is posted at the beginning, there is this CNN article which says: "Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was 'commercially driven' when it made the ruling." The "site" would mean the "TPB site," I guess. Of course, TPB could argue today's site, run by a new organization, is different from the one that was earlier run by the convicted individuals. We should probably report their claim as a claim. The court did make a finding the TPB of the past was a commercial concern. Churn and change (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no reliable primary source that the defendants do not continue to own TPB. They have made innumerable false claims about the operation and location of the site in the past, and indeed all testified that they never had much to do with the original site at their trial, and those claims have been repeated by numerous other sites. The court didn't believe them. All statements from TPB are now anonymous; which makes for a poor source. Further, Sweden has not revised its finding that the site is commercial. The court decision stands.74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read this entire section. As quoted above by ABC News "Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A statement that "Pirate Bay claims it is a non-profit" can be cited to their own website. There isn't a WP:RS issue with that, but there could well be a WP:UNDUE issue. A statement that "Pirate Bay is a non-profit" requires far stronger sourcing, especially considering the court ruling. Churn and change (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems sensible to place a much greater emphasis on the findings of the court rather than what the site/it's owners claim about themselves (especially as they'd want to deny commercial motivations in order to minimize legal problems). Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a source that actually says that the court made any such 'finding', or 'court ruling', in any legal sense. The individuals were apparently tried as individuals, and it doesn't appear that the legal status of TPB was actually an issue. In any case, as I previously commented during the discussion at WP:NPOVN, it isn't up to Wikipedia to determine the 'truth' of the matter - where something like this is disputed, we should make this clear, rather than 'determining' one way or another. Incidentally, I'd like to put on record that I have some doubts about the appropriateness of using a source with elipses ("...") in the middle of a quotation for a citation regarding such an important issue. It is not entirely unreasonable to ask what was said between "extensive infringement of copyright law" and "in a commercial and organized form". In most circumstances, one can probably trust a reliable source like the CSM not to distort meanings through such omission, but when one is relying on the quote for assertions of fact in Wikipedia's voice - as the source was being cited for in relation to an infobox statement - it is perhaps better to avoid using such material if possible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

We have a direct quote by Judge Tomas Norström, reported by CNET (no ellipses). — ThePowerofX 08:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean this one? ""The crime has been committed in a commercial and organized form," Judge Tomas Norström said in a Web broadcast from a press conference in Stockholm. ". (ref). Those are ellipses. Belorn (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The wiki-voice claim that "Pirate Bay is a non-profit" is for me as bad as to say that "The pirate bay is for-profit". Same as Andy talks about above, if an reliable source deem that a statement require elipses and inline attribution ("Judge Tomas Norstrom said"), it sound unappropriate for us to remove them and create what was an citation about what a person said to a statement of fact. To that point, is claim 0 then supported by it's sources? second, is claim 1 (even if it only refer to the past) stray to close to the borderline to be supported by it's sources? The best thing I would like to be identified here is what claims of the #0-2 can be verified by their sources, as that would help move the discussion past the "The pirate bay lies!, The court didn't believe them! All statements from TPB are anonymous!, The court decision is only one that matter!" stage of discussion and into the end stage of finding a solution everyone (or at least most) can agree on.. Belorn (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay and its owners/managers aren't reliable sources about themselves on a topic such as this as they're hardly likely to own up to what basically amounts to deliberate and sustained criminality. If the judge ruled that this was a commercial website (under whatever the applicable laws are) as part of the trial and her or his decision hasn't been over-turned on appeal, that opinion has to be accorded a lot of weight (eg, as it's been proven factual in court). If experts in this field (and not random journalists) have commented on the matter their views are also worth discussing in the article. If it's not possible to summarize a contested issue into an infobox field, leave it out. This might be getting beyond the scope of this board, however, and may be better suited to WP:DRN. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"If the judge ruled that this was a commercial website..."? This is the point I've been trying to get over, that some people simply fail to understand. I've seen no source that actually states that the judge was asked to make any such ruling. A ruling is a formal legal statement, in regard to a specific case which requires such a ruling. A comment made by a judge in relation to another issue isn't a ruling. The individuals were tried as individuals. The judge was (as far as the sources cited show) neither required to rule on the commercial status of TPB, nor in any position to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The judge ruled on it because it affected the sentences. In fact, the court appointed a special master to audit the books of TPB. Indeed, the judge specifically stated “that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling.” So, the ruling was dependent on the question of commerciality.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Then show us the source that states that the judge made such a ruling. And no, a statement by a judge isn't in itself a 'ruling' - a judge can only 'rule' on things within the remit of the trial, and nothing we have been shown so far indicates that the judge was asked to rule on the legal commercial status of TPB. If he wasn't asked to, he couldn't have done so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are claiming that a judge cannot look at motive in sentence determination, I don't think you'll get much support for that viewpoint. Profit is clearly a motive. (Clarification edit: was speaking about motives in general, not specific to this case.) In any case, it is for the defense to raise objections in appeal. The defense failed in all appeals. The judge said the site was commercial and the judge in a trial would appear to be a highly reliable source, particularly given that appeals have been exhausted.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

At Copyright you will find a 24 page doc put out by the Swedish Ministry of Justice that briefly describes Swedish copyright. It does not go into full detail. But, it summarizes with the following statement:

“Piracy, i.e. unauthorised copying of protected works and productions on a commercial scale, is a significant problem in many countries, mainly because new technology makes it easier and less expensive to copy music, videos, computer programs, books, etc. For this reason, many countries have increased the penalty for such piracy and have provided customs authorities with greater powers to take action against the import of pirated material.”

That is, the commercial aspect goes into sentencing. Hence the need for the judge to examine the question of commerciality.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. We don't base articles on the opinions of contributors. No source has been provided which states that the judge made any formal legal ruling regarding the commercial status of TPB. Without one his opinions regarding the matter are in no way 'rulings' - and it appears that what he is reported to have said on the matter was said outside of court anyway, where he would be unlikely to 'rule' on anything. Your relentless efforts to twist words to mean things they don't is getting tendentious. Either provide a source that directly states that the courts have made a formal legal ruling regarding the commercial status of TPB, or drop the matter. We aren't going to use imaginary 'rulings' as a basis for article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation that I am twisting words is a violation of [WP:CIV] and ridiculous. And this is clearly not a case of [WP:OR]. The judge in the trial stated that the site was commercial. That is a reliable source that the site was commercial. Here is yet another source from a Swedish newspaper that states “The District Court in Stockholm said the punishment was decided with regards to the fact that the complicity of the defendants had entailed an extensive accessibility-making of other people’s rights. The fact that the activity has been commercial and organised was also taken into account.” The article also quotes passages in the trial on the subject of commerciality. Again, commercialty was, in fact, a part of the trial despite your suggestion that it could not have been.74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ruling is the wrong word. Rather, it was the judgment of the court, based upon the evidence, that TPB had been operating commercially. A judgement was made, a verdict was announced, and the ruling is that they each face a prison sentence and fine. That is sufficient. — ThePowerofX 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Judgement is OK with me.74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That source cited doesn't state that a court ruled that TPB was a commercial enterprise either. It says (if the translation is correct) that individuals had been involved in "commercial and organised" activities. I can't see any objection to Wikipedia saying that in a judgement, the individuals concerned were stated to have been involved in "commercial and organised" behaviour - but we can't cite a source for something it doesn't say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling. (Pardon my use of the word ruling. This is a quote from the USA Today cite.74.108.115.191 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What 'USA Today cite'? Where is this linked - I can't see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's what the Associated Press reported following sentencing.^[17] — ThePowerofX 20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

'The ruling' was clearly a ruling that the individuals on trial were guilty of contravening Swedish copyright law. It wasn't a ruling that TPB was in itself a commercial organisation. Anyway, I think we've established well enough that the correct way to handle this is to make no assertions in Wikipedia's voice regarding TPB's commercial status, but instead to indicate that opinions differ, and to cite the significant opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Anon IP is correct. It was indeed a finding of the court that TPB was commercially driven. — ThePowerofX 22:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not a 'correction' it is an unsourced assertion, base apparently on your own WP:OR reading of a primary source. WP:PRIMARY is absolutely clear regarding this "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the RS board, as far as I understand, is to determine whether or not a source is reliable under the WP !rules. Reliable sources, to put it very briefly, are sources with a good reputation that are verifiable and on point. You seem to reject every single source. If WP had a time machine and a teleporter, it could enjoy 100% reliability. And there would be no need of an RS Noticeboard. But, we are only human. We have been provided with quite a number of cites now on the assertion that TPB is commercial. The sources are mainstream, reliable resources. We have also seen the Swedish Justice Ministry paper that provides the need for a determination of commerciality in penalty construction in piracy cases, countering your suggestion that the judge had no business in determining commerciality. The actual judge in the case, in a news conference about the case, quoted by mainstream news sources, stated that TPB was commercial. Not the people, the site itself. A long stream of appeals by the defendants all failed. They were sentenced to prison, and the judge stated, and was quoted by numerous sources, as saying the decision was based upon commercial nature.

The crux of this discussion is the commerciality of TPB. The claim is that it is in dispute. All of the onus has been placed on those that simply wish to use the judgment of the state of Sweden rendered by its court system. And, only in the infobox. The prose of the related WP articles already contain dozens of references to the protestations of innocence by the convicted. No demands have been made on those that claim TPB is non-profit. Is there one single, reasonable source, outside of TPB itself or those that echoed TPBs claims prior to the ruling, that supports the claim that TPB was non-profit? An auditor? An accountant? A certificate or declaration of non-profit status? An expert in Swedish non-profit law? A court judgment? Other than the self-serving claim, rejected by the court, is there one single piece of evidence of non-profit status? If not, what is the dispute?

Everything is disputed by somebody, including existence itself. I’m trying to be nice, but if we were to follow your concept of RS, WP would be empty.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Go away and read the policy material I have linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Conclusions

For clearing up what the consensus is from the above conclusion, please confirm this. (please keep the answer simple so an yes/no can be clearly identified):

Is verifiable: Claim 0: The pirate bay is an commercial website. verifiable by the sources abcnews, cnet, law.com, and huffingtonpost.com.

Is not verifiable: Claim 1: The pirate bay has been described as an non-profit torrent site. dailytech.com, ISBN 978-0-9804344-1-5, independentsentinel.com, and pcmweb.nl.

Is not verifiable: Claim 2: The pirate bay claims that today the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles.. The pirate bay about page, sourcedigit.com, cnn.com, and The Guardian.

thanks, Belorn (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

1. It's improper to label Conclusion. Proposed conclusion, non bolded, would have been more appropriate.
2. The bald assertion that "Full Wikivoice" was used to make an assertion is false: the source was cited, therefore it's not the voice of Wikipedia, it's the voice of the source. If one didn't like the cited source, pick another one. Pretty easy, really. If it had not been cited, then it would have been "in wikivoice".
3. Anyways, Claims 0 and 1 (modified with date and attribution) are both unambiguously verifiable by RS, and I think are usable in the prose if properly attributed and put in time context. Claim 2 is not RS V, and needs more concrete assertions in RS, such as "non-profit" or "non-commercial", which I didn't see in the news articles proper.

   Example: "TPB defendants claimed in 2008 (or insert whichever RS sourced year) that it operated as a non-profit(ref)(ref)." The (year) court ruling which (year) appeals court upheld included, according to the judge, "commercial" operation.(ref)(ref) This is a crap example, only to demonstrate attribution and time context.

4. Leave the Commercial= parameter blank in the infobox, since it is intended for completely uncontroversial and unlikely to be contested status only.

Most important: context and proper attribution is crucial to put the words in the sources mouth, not ours. Reported in RS media outlets? Relevant to the dispute? Disputed in public? We can report it here. --Lexein (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it the bold text of the claims, or the bold title? Feel free to modify my above post if anyone want, as my intention is only to get a feel for the discussion consensus, so to figure out if I should drop the discussion, ask if a compromise is acceptable based on what is found here, or ask DNR to sort it all out. as a lingering question, is there anyone who object to what Lexein said above? Belorn (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. The proposed conclusion is realized, in fact, by the status quo. Therefore, I see no reason for any change in the article. Commerciality was deemed important by the editor that originally added the claim that the site was non-profit based on the declarations of the operators. It is just as important now that it has been judged commercial by the courts and the operators sentenced, and therefore, the infobox should continue to say Commercial:Yes as was the consensus long ago. We have seen sources that are mainstream quoting the judge in the trial itself giving his statement that commerciality was a part of the decision in the case, that it applied to the site, and we have seen the document by the Swedish Ministry of Justice attesting to the importance of commerciality in piracy cases. Reliability is strong, and importance is significant. The article already includes many claims by the defense that contradict the finding of guilt. Actually, an unusually large number of such references, probably well above WP:UNDUE acceptability. But, that’s another story. My compliments to the editors that have maintained an article on a highly charged subject.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't work like that. Infoboxes are for uncontroversial assertions of fact. This isn't an uncontroversial 'fact' at all. And please stop citing your own irrelevant [[WP:SYN|synthesis. Anyway, we don't have a reliable source that actually states that the courts have judged TPB 'commercial' so far. All we have is references to a court case concerning individuals infringing copyright - with no mention of any formal decision regarding the commercial status of TPB at all. Unsurprising, since this wasn't what the court was asked to do. Courts only make rulings on the case before them, as far as I'm aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been given the reliable sources several times that contradict both these claims. If you do not consider the judge handling the case and an official document published by the Swedish Ministry of Justice as reliable sources, I see no more reason to bother responding to you.74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Go away and read the policy links I have given you. We don't cite sources for things they don't say. The Swedish courts have made no formal judgement on the commercial nature of TPB, as far as the sources so far presented have shown. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How about what the judge later said about the ruling, in public, as I (tried to) exemplify above? --Lexein (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Best Things On Earth Request For Comment

Archived discussion is copied here along with additional content and comment

Archived discussion:

This is a request for comment on using the website 'Best Things On Earth' (www.btoe.com) on these pages: Colin Larkin (writer) I wish to include a link in the 'infobox' section of the article. Since it states in the lead section that: Colin Larkin is a British entrepreneur and writer. He was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by The Times as "the standard against which all others must be judged". He is the CEO and editor-in-chief of 'Best Things On Earth' an online multi-media rating site. This fact can be verified at www.btoe.com in the 'About Us' section. All Time Top 1000 Albums I wish to include a link to the "How It Works" section of btoe.com (www.btoe.com/how-it-works) in the article All Time Top 1000 Albums since it states in the Colin Larkin (writer) article that: By 2007, Larkin had begun work on a new website whose original inspiration had come from the All Time Top 1000 Albums, called 1000Greatest.com. This would later become the multi-media rating site and app, Best Things On Earth. In addition, details of how the book All Time Top 1000 Albums and the above website, share a common 'how it works' history are included in the All Time Top 1000 Albums article, since it states that: In 1998, the second edition published by Virgin Books used the continuing votes received over the previous four years. As a result of the publicity garnered by the encyclopaedia and the first edition, Larkin was able to ask for votes during his numerous radio broadcasts for BBC GLR, now BBC London 94.9. He collected 100,000 votes and the 2nd edition sold 38,000 copies. In 1999 Virgin published a smaller pocket edition, followed by a 3rd edition published in 2000, by which time the ongoing poll had reached over 200,000 votes cast....By 2005 the book had run its course and the large number of websites using the Virgin All Time Top 1000 Albums' lists demonstrated that the Internet reflected current opinion more rapidly than any printed book could. In 2008 Larkin co-founded a company to launch a website '1000Greatest.com', which invited the public to express their opinions on Albums, Movies, Novels and Singles. This later became "Best Things On Earth" (or Btoe.com), which would allow users to suggest any topic and vote for the best example of that topic. This can also be verified in the 'About Us' section of www.btoe.com and the 'How It Works Section'. Thanks for your consideration. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Note that said link is currently blacklisted for spam abuse and that requester writes for the site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New Evidence and Comment

Hi Jamie, I only posted the link where I thought it was relevant. This is a request for whitelisting. Here is further evidence that the above mentioned source is reliable. The website in question is referenced and linked to the named Colin Larkin in this current BBC Entertainment News article published 7.10.12 Chart attack: The Beatles' rivals in 1962. Thanks for your help Pamela Gardiner (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just titling the header as a request for comment...doesn't make it one. And this is not the place to do so. Please make an actual RFC at the Village pump. This noticeboard cannot delist a blacklisted link. That would be an admin or office action, not a matter of consenus from what I understand. If I am incorrect I trust someone will make it clear.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeated request Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_133

Aside from the obvious Spam abuse which resulted in blacklisting and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pamela Gardiner/Archive

• btoe.com Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

• Wikipedia is not a vehicle to drive traffic to polls

--Hu12 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

== Sorry if this post was in the wrong place, I thought because there was a note on the whitelist page saying request for comment hadn't reached consensus and I was supposed to discuss it here. If that's a mistake I apologise, please advise me where to take the discussion. This wasnt a request to use the above mentioned website anywhere except on the pages concerning its co-founder, ie it is a specific whitelist request. The link I just posted here from the BBC verifies that Colin Larkin is the website founder. This is just a whitelist request to place that website on Colin Larkin's page, because I don't think anything else will describe it better. Not sure how that would count as trying to drive traffic to polls? The website is not a 'self-published source', not sure why anyone would think so. It is a rating site. Thanks Pamela Gardiner (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 18:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

YoungJusticeLegacy.com

I was wondering if www.youngjusticelegacy.com is a valid source of citation for Young Justice (TV series). It has something of a slick look to it, but there doesn't appear to be editorial oversight. As well, the information therein appears to have little provenance or background. I am not sure how to proceed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that you've answered your own question :) It the site doesn't have any editorial oversight, and its unclear what supports its content then its not a reliable source. The website appears to be related to a computer game based on the TV series, but it's unclear it its an official or unofficial site. Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If you click on the "corporate" button at the bottom of the site toward the middle, you can see the site belongs to a company called "Little Orbit" which sells a video game based on the series. The company is a startup (from 2010) and isn't really top-tier (one way to check is to look at the list of investors and see whether there are well-known names there; another is to check the qualifications of the management team). They are probably legit in the sense of having the right licenses etc., but definitely a promotional and non-neutral source, and not a notable one at that. Churn and change (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, although I believe they only have the license for use of one particular subject in their disclaimer.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Beatles source

Hello everyone, I'd like to confirm with you that Pollack's Beatles song analyses are a reliable source: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml. I need some backup on this, because I want to use it in a featured article and there's an editor who's not yet convinced it's legit. Details are here on the archive page. Who's with me? Thanks, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking through your earlier discussion, seems like the only objection, a mild one, was to the website, not to Pollack's analyses? Since the Pollack analyses are hosted elsewhere (the moderated rec.music.beatles newsgroup), is this an issue? I notice http:///www.icce.rug.nl has only some stuff on the C++ programming language, so the site's music credibility can be questioned. Pollack, once an instructor of music and composition at Yale, is a subject expert, and this is self-published information from an expert. If editors agree, such information can be used, and in this case, best I can make out, there seems to be general agreement his Beatle notes are credible. From WP:RS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As to the website, why use it when a better one is available? Churn and change (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

While Pollack may meet the SPS qualifications as a reliable source, it is hardly difficut to find Beatles song commentary in other equally reliable sources. The question is why would we specifically want Pollack's commentary from these particular places.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive replies!

@Churn and change, you are of course right about rec.music.beatles -- it just hadn't occured to me, my apologies. Would you source directly from the newsgroup or from their web mirror http://www.recmusicbeatles.com?

@TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, good question! I want to quote Pollack specifically for his statements on Paul's singing and range in Hey Jude; the analysis Pollack gives would make a good addition to the Paul McCartney article section about his vocal abilities, in my opinion. As to the source for Pollack's analyses, I will be happy to follow Churn and change's advice and take rec.music.beatles instead.

Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think directly linking to Google groups, example, is better. No reason not to. Churn and change (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the "Details are here . . ." link Georgepauljohnringo provides, the source is used for attributed statements such as "Pollack, the musicologist, sees Beatle's xyz song as such-and-such." I am not sure whether there is an "official" site holding the notes, but the moderated rec.music.beatles newsgroup seems the best option. It is true the soundscape site is used in the FA article on Hey Jude but the citations for that article are in bad shape (one "Notes" entry does not point to anything in "References" and many "References" entries are orphaned); its major contributors all have long since stopped editing the article. Churn and change (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I feel WP:BOLD enough to take this back to the PaulMcCartney FA now :-) I'll try to change the Pollack quotes in the "Hey Jude" FA as well so they point to the more reliable rec.music.beatles newsgroup. --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I take that one back. Churn and change, what about the caveat that Pollack's work in the relevant field has not been previously published by reliable third-party publications? At least, I can't find such publications of Pollack's work pre-Beatles. Don't you think my original argument is more watertight; namely that Pollack's work has been legitimised by subsequent references from reliable sources (Kenneth Womack's "Long and winding roads" for Continuum Publishing, see here for Pollack reference, and Russell Reising's "Speak to me" for Ashgate Publishing, see here for Pollack reference)? Let me know what you think, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, being an instructor at Yale's school of music and composition does, I think, fulfill the spirit of the criterion, though not its exact wording. Even an adjunct lecturer would have had some earlier publications. Later notability cannot stamp an earlier publication as credible. The science paper a Nobel laureate published in an undergrad-level magazine (say psi chi) isn't necessarily a reliable source. In this case you might argue we are talking of the same piece of work being quoted by Womack and Reising. However this work seems to have taken decades to finish, and it would be difficult to establish their quotes are from the years before the sentences you cite. Churn and change (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

ARXIV.ORG paper

ARXIV.ORG paper [18] is used to make the following claim [19].Though apparently the paper is written by scholar there are several problems with this source

1. ARXIV.ORG is preprint archive i.e its not peer reviewed

1. The claim that made by the paper is WP:REDFLAG claim as it clearly goes against mainstream scholarship.For example this paper [20] or this summary[21] by expert in the field.

I think to use those claims in Wikipedia to the very least it should be printed in peer-reviewed journal.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Arxiv has some oversight in that there is a system of weeding out utter junk and only accepting papers from researchers in the field, but, yes, it has no true peer review. Note that even a paper in a source like Nature making this claim can be objected to on the grounds of its being a recent primary source and possibly a one-off result, or its being not interpreted by us non-experts correctly. A controversial paper from arxiv is not a quality source. If this is an article about this specific scholar himself, the paper can, with a lot of care, be included to support a statement that so-and-so said such-and-such. In an article on Ashkenazi Jews, where mentions in reliable secondary sources are plentiful, this, per me, fails both WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Churn and change (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. A single, recent paper, published on a preprint archive with minimal oversight, is not a weighty source. If it becomes published by an established journal and has been evaluated by the larger community, then it might be suitable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Same, there are cases where citing an arXiv preprint may be appropriate, but this is clearly not one of them. a13ean (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Not peer-reviewed. And one gets the impression that the proposed paragraph is based entirely on the article abstract - has the person who wrote it even read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The argument being made above by everyone makes sense. See WP:REDFLAG. In some cases pre-prints are notable enough, or written by someone with enough reputation for reliability or notability, that we could consider a counter argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable people too have their biases, do make mistakes, and need their funding and hence have agendas to push. Preprints at arxiv suffer from these problems even when from Nobel laureates (after all, some Nobel laureates have pushed fringe views sometimes in their own fields of expertise). Peer review and editorial oversight fix some of these issues. Notability alone doesn't mean reliability because of non-technical, political issues which affect everybody including scientists. Still another reason to use secondary sources more. Churn and change (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In general, the type of coverage by reliable sources and citations of the self published source can give an idea of its reliability. (I'm speaking more generally, it doesn't apply in this case due to the red flags) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say the coverage has to be in secondary sources for arxiv papers to be useful except when attributed. Trouble with citations, especially for a preprint from a notable author, may be that the citations might just be refuting the paper (think of a paper on ESP; yes, notable psychologists have published such even in peer-reviewed journals, and drawn rebuttals; the citation count is misleading there). Citation counts also vary with the field, with humanities and non-psychology social sciences less focused on the metric. Also if a paper has been on arxiv long enough for it to garner lots of citations, there is the question of why it wasn't published in the interim. There are some special cases, such as scientists who believe in the arxiv model only, but these may not be numerous. Churn and change (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Funding Universe

I am looking for feedback on the website Funding Universe. Specifically this link was removed from Frank L. VanderSloot's page: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/melaleuca-inc-history/. The website appears to satisfy RS requirements. The articles for E-Trade, Rainforest Cafe, Meade Instruments, Columbia House, and others also have references to that website.

Your citation should really refer to the International Directory of Company Histories, which is where the material is from. That is a good source, with links hosted for example at the Harvard Business School library and Stanford GSB library. You could provide your website as a convenience link (that is in the url= part of the citation). Churn and change (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no indication at FundingUniverse.com that the proprietors of that site are experts in company histories, or even if they are, that they exert editorial oversight, including a reliable fact-checking process. Better to go to to the source as sleuthed out by Churn and change, which does have that kind of expertise and rep for editorial quality. See WP:RS and WP:V. EMP (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pamela Geller blog

Yay, another ridiculous question I'm forced to ask! Is anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller's blog, atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com, sufficiently reliable that it can be included in any article? While one would presume that it verifiably represents her own personal feelings, I argue that it falls so far short of WP:RS that it should not be used in articles on other subjects on which Ms. Geller might happen to express an opinion - for instance, Srebrenica massacre, where it is currently being inserted in spite of talkpage consensus not to include it. I have asked that users interested in including her opinion produce reliable sources to show that it belongs in the article, but no luck. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant question regarding reliable sources, Pamela Geller and the Srebrenica Massacre article is this: "Can a person's blog be used to show what that person's opinion is?". The answer is yes. Fairview360

Absolutely not reliable for anything other than her opinion. And only third party coverage of her opinion would indicate that her opinion might be worthy of inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Current usage for interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If her opinion is notable enough WP:RS should cite her on those matters.Her blog should be used only as primary source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with TheRedPenOfDoom and Shrike. Geller's blog opinions should only be used on Wikipedia as far as they are mentioned in reliable third party sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not really a matter of whether or not its "reliable" - its a matter of WP:UNDUE space being given to a fringe viewpoint by bringing it up at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good source for facts, or as a convenience link for sources she copies. Can be used to cite her own opinions, where editorial consensus is they are notable. Churn and change (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

<-I guess its use in Ron Coleman (legal scholar) to support the statement "Other reported blogger clients include Pamela Geller"[22] is probably a BLP violation and needs replacing. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

removed until we have third party or reciprical sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Geller is certainly Notable, but strictly an opinion writer. She does not have a history of even-handed treatment of facts, but certainly often includes facts not reported on widely in other sources. Is her blog GENERALLY a WP:RS? Obviously no. Can it be referred to in appropriate ways in Articles as opinion? Obviously yes. As to whether any INDIVIDUAL (that is the sticking point for me in responding) inclusion passes WP:RS or WP:UNDUE is a separate issue, and needs separate posting, as per WP:RS Noticeboard guidelines. Looking over your reversions, I would generally agree they are individually justified, but am not going to endorse a blanket ban on Geller references, though they should only be used with extreme caution. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There are very few blanket bans on sources. Even the current community consensus that Huffington Post is not reliable for facts is slowly changing as the publication changes. But I would dispute her being "notable" for our definition on Wikipedia. She is certainly controversial, but does that make her blog notable enough to ignore the current polciy against blog sites being used? Anyone can write a blog. Anyone can create an internet site. But we simple don't use self published blogs of this nature WP:BLOGS.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has misrepresented the true nature of the situation in the talkpage of the Srebrenica Massacre. There is NOT concensus on the talkpage and Roscelese knows that. Furthermore, no editor wants to use Geller's blog as a reference for anything other than showing her own opinion. Meanwhile, all editors agree that her blog is an accurate reflection of her own opinion. After misrepresenting the situation among editors on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage, Roscelese is now taking this discussion and presenting the opinions of the editors here such as The Red Pen of Doom and claiming that there is consensus that under no circumstances should Geller's blog be used as a reference. In other words Roscelese is lying. There is not consensus here that Geller's blog should not be used under any conditions. The consensus here is that the blog can not be used as a reliable source, as The Red Pen of Doom says, "for anything than her own opinion." So how is that Roscelese can take this discussion and present it as supporting his position when it does not? And how is it that Roscelese can claim consensus on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage when it clearly and obviously does not exist? It appears that Roscelese is working the system here. Furthermore, it would behoove Roscelese to inform all the other involved editors when he starts a discussion here. Instead, he instigated a discussion here without informing others, twisted the results of this discussion and manipulated the situation on the Srebrenica Massacre page such that his preferred edits have been locked in place. This is not what wikipedia envisioned when setting up these systems. They are not meant to be gamed but rather assist good faith discussion, something Roscelese has avoided constantly misrepresenting other editors both here and on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage. What is not clear is what his actual agenda is and why he is objecting to an example of opposition to the description of genocide being given in a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. Two reliable sources -- The Guardian and the Southern Poverty Law Center -- have been cited showing that her opinion is notable whiel her own blog has been used solely for the purpose of showing her opinion, something most editors here have explicitly approved. What is going on here? Fairview360

Quoting Geller at Srebrenica massacre is undue emphasis on a minor viewpoint. If Geller's viewpoint was important, another commentator in a reliable source would have discussed it. If you want to bring Geller's opinion into the article you should use third party comments, not Geller's blog. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Geller's status as a historian or political analyst or pretty much anything is WAY on the fringe. The only time her opinions should even be considered for inclusion on any article would be if there were significant third party commentary on Geller's opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

While editors such as Fairview360 and The Red Pen of Doom both agree that Geller's views are WAY on the fringe and perhaps both Fairvew and The Red Pen wish we lived in a world where people with such views were not given mainstream credibility and notability, with Geller, that is not the case. Reliable sources have stated that she is notable. In fact, the Guardian specifically refers to how counter-intuitive that may be: This strange performance might suggest that Geller is a figure consigned to the margins of the widening and increasingly heated debate about the role of Muslims in America. Far from it. The flamboyant New Yorker, who appears on her own website pictured in a tight fitting Superman uniform, has emerged as a leading force in a growing and ever more alarmist campaign against the supposed threat of an Islamic takeover at home and global jihad abroad http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america The fact is reliable sources are stating that Pamela Geller is notable. Hence, wikieditors and administrators need to acknowledge that. Fairview360

In the Srebrenica Massacre article and the talkpage, two reliable sources have been provided showing that Pamela Geller is notable, including an article in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america where she is described as having "aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals." The Southern Poverty Law Center states "Geller's incendiary rhetoric and readiness to deny civil freedoms and the presumption of innocence to Muslims hasn't prevented her from gaining a measure of mainstream acceptability. In late March 2011, she was even invited by the Alaska House of Representatives to testify on a proposed anti-Shariah bill." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller Meanwhile the Daily News New York http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-25/local/28647400_1_islamic-center-anti-islamic-pamela-geller considers both the Southern Poverty Law Center and Pamela Geller are notable. Hence, significant third party commentary has been provided by The Guardian, The Daily News New York and the Southern Poverty Law Center. So, on what grounds, does Roscelese continue to post on wikipedia that there are no reliable sources demonstrating that Pamela Geller is notable. Roscelese knows of these sources. He has been presented with them repeatedly. Still he ignores them, ignores the actual response of the editors here, and posts on the Srebrenica Massacre article that there is consensus supporting his position that Geller is not notable and that her blog can never be used not even to show her own opinions. There is no consensus supporting Roscelese and yet he succeeds in claiming that all the editors here agree with his position thereby getting the administrator Ckatz to lock the article into deleting the reference to Pamela Geller. There remains the question why Roscelese would put so much effort into getting an example of opposition to the description of genocide deleted from a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. (?) Does it not make sense that wikieditors would contribute examples of opposition to the description of genocide by notable people to a section titled Opposition to the description genocide?Fairview360

No, those independent sources do not say anything about Geller's blog posts about Srebrenica. You cannot use them to synthesize a position that Geller's opinion on Srebrenica has been noticed. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, half of the examples given in the said section of the Srebrenica Massacre article would need be deleted. If understood correctly, Binksternet is affirming that a) Geller is a notable person, b) she does oppose the description of the Srebrenica Massacre as genocide, c) her opinion does provide an example of a notable person opposing the description of the Srebrenica Massacre as genocide, but it does not belong in the section. If one visits the genocide denial article, one will see multiple examples given of genocide denial by notable people. In the writing on gencodie denial in general, several opinions are offered from notable people. But there is no reliable source stating that that specific opinion is notable. How can wikieditors refer to the opinions of notable people if they can do so only when a reliable source states that that particular opinion is notable to that particular topic? If wikipedia were to hold to such a standard, the opinions of George Orwell writing about the mechanism of denial would be deleted from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial because no third party stated that Orwell's specific opinion given was notable in relation to the specific topic. Fairview360

George Orwell's viewpoint on nationalism and atrocities has been widely discussed in biographies and scholarly works. Your example falls down on that point. Geller's viewpoint has not been discussed. Sorry, but pointing to other parts of the article will not help Geller be noticed. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the New York Times also considers Pamela Geller to be notable: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10geller.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Fairview360

But not on Srebrenica massacre--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What have we learned here? If the New York Times article says nothing about the article topic then it cannot be used. Stop trying to prop up a synthesis of several sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Do all editors agree that a) a person's blog can be used as a reliable reference to show that person's opinion (and for that purpose only) and b) that Geller is a notable person? Then we can move onto the question of synthesis. Fairview360

Aryn Baker War Propaganda

On Syrian civil war#Sectarianism, there are two sentences from an article where Aryn Baker based her history of grafit eyewitness on a anonymous testimony. The author, Aryn Baker has raputation of conflict of interest.[23][24] [25] It looks like a war propaganda. Dafranca (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Aryn Baker is the Middle East Bureau Chief for Time and before that Associate Editor for Time Asia, based in Hong Kong. See [26]. Time is a strong source for recent political events. I notice she is cited in many articles, and not just for the two sentences you mention. The criticism you mention is in publications like Observer, Nation, and Firedoglake. Those publications aren't reliable enough to challenge a story in an established magazine like Time. You will need better sources to challenge her credibility. Churn and change (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute and Taybeh

Is this piece by an unknown journalist in a think tank a reliable source for the views of Christian residents of a Palestinian town towards Muslims in neighboring villages? nableezy - 16:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What are the arguments of editors who believe in the credibility of an institute whose front page, as of this moment, features "The Qatari takeover of France" (not humorously, not as a reference to popularity of some cuisine, but as a serious legal proposition)? Churn and change (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the British tabloid newspaper "The Sun" a reliable source?

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Savile some editors are stating that the British tabloid newspaper is not a reliable source for wikipedia articles. In fact the article on Jimmy Savile currently quotes the fact that The Sun was one of the very few British media organisations which made an effort to report on his questionable activities while he was alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile ""In March 2008, Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne." Some editors on this article which is about a very fast moving current news story feel that The Sun should not be used as a source and there have been some efforts to remove information sourced to that newspaper. I feel this should proceed on a better basis than the personal feelings of one or two active editors on that page and would like to know what the wider community thinks. Thank you. Smeat75 (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

general note it is unrealible with questionable news articles in teh past, but with any soure there is not a source that is completely unrelaible and no soruce 100% reliable each is determined on wha tthe article it is getting used on and in what context the source is getitng used forAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If that particular The Sun wrote "Today's issue is printed on the cheapest yellow newsprint available." I'd still want corroborating independent sources. Some other newspapers of fine repute are burdened in that they share a similar name, but most of these distinguish their names somehow, such as the Vancouver Sun or the Chicago Sun-Times. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good source at all - that said if the info is accurate it should easily be found at other locations (may sources).Moxy (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the point really - the Sun is a downmarket tabloid with a reputation for sensationalism, and is generally considered a less-than-ideal source. But, as always, such questions can only be answered if it is made clear what the Sun is being cited for - and given the current media interest in the developing story, it would seem likely that better sources could be found for the most significant details. Per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no rush to cover every last detail immediately, and anything of enduring significance that the Sun prints which other, more trustworthy, sources confirm would be better cited to the latter. That the Sun had the courage to print the story on Haut de la Garenne while other media outlets shied away is to their credit, but it doesn't materially affect their general reliability as a source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This story involves living individuals, as well as Savile himself, and we need to consider WP:BLP policy carefully in as much as such individuals are concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a very fast-moving story, but look at WP:RECENT. We shouldn't aim to cover every twist and turn. The notable developments will be in all the papers. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

for Biographical articles I cannot ever see any reason why you would want to use The Sun. Ever. There is never going to be anything in there worth reporting on that isnt better covered in some source with mountains more credibility. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty sensible approach. a13ean (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; we are not into "scoops." Sun is one of those publications the BLP policy was written for. Churn and change (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources"The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." As a tabloid they are sensationlists and rely heavily on rumor. I wouldn't call it RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case, though, the Sun is being cited not for rumours, but for an incident in its own history. What's more, the last thing British newspapers usually do is to admit they weren't there first, so it is much less likely, in this case, that other newspapers would readily report this interesting item. We should at least be prepared to mention the Sun's assertion with inline attribution. It would be wrong of us to censor the Sun out of the history. Andrew Dalby 09:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's about The Sun's history shouldn't we be looking for a secondary source that isn't The Sun? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And even if "the last thing British newspapers usually do is to admit they weren't there first, so it is much less likely, in this case, that other newspapers would readily report this interesting item." we can wait for books or other sources to cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-tabloids-bbc-allegations in the Guardian. Then I think per WP:PST the Sun source can go in alongside it. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good find. Notice, in support of my risky generalization just above, that this is a blog piece (but it's good for us to cite, I'm sure) -- meanwhile, in the Guardian newspaper's report of Savile's link to the Jersey scandal, the Sun is not mentioned. Andrew Dalby 15:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. If I had a choice between trusting a compulsive liar locked in a straitjacket in a padded cell scrawling his inane ramblings about how the lizard people secretly run the world through an extensive mind control programme on the wall of said cell with his own faeces and trusting what is written in The Sun, I'd flip a coin because they truly are about equivalent in reliability. It's about as far away from a reliable source as you can possibly get. It's a tabloid rag filled with sensationalistic bullshit and made-up nonsense. It has about as justifiable role in an encyclopedia as Jimmy Savile does in the dormitory of a girl's boarding school. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll put you down for a "maybe." Zad68 18:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with Tom's point here - in general the Redtop tabloids are chasing readers rather than 'the truth' as their general principle. I strongly dislike the way everyone (inc. Tom) appears to be taking JS's guilt as fact, but I'm also a believer in 'innocent until proven guilty'. --AlisonW (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Using Auction/Classified sites as sources - legit or no?

I deleted a number of citations for the Wheeler Dealers article citing the WP:Advert rules since the sites were of auction sites and classified ads. An anonymous editor insists they are valid and has put them back in twice from the links provided. I've looked over the pages for citations and I find no justification for the valid usage of these links in any article. So I have to ask if my reasoning is right or did I miss something that says such links are valid?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, anon's logic seems to be badly cited material (sourced to a primary source) is better than totally uncited material. Do you have better citations? If not, one option is to remove the material. Practically, for start-class articles, unless there are BLP or COPYVIO issues, it is better to leave lower-quality and primary-source citations in, helping future editors research the issue. Churn and change (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue I see other than the advert violation is that much of the source for the text will be the actual episodes themselves, which in a sense,so I don't see the use of keeping in this material that is ambiguous at best (note many of the links don't cite Wheeler Dealers specifically and could be a blatant Wikipedia:OR issue as well).--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources needed to confirm that the documentary film 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' by Peter Joseph helped inspire the 'Zeitgeist Movement' founded by Peter Joseph

I have been asked to provide sources to confirm that the documentary film Zeitgeist: The Movie by Peter Joseph helped inspire The Zeitgeist Movement founded by him. I have provided the two sources. Firstly I cited a Huffington Post blog (already treated as WP:RS for much else in the article) which states that "The movement's founder, Peter Joseph, came to notoriety with his 2007 internet film sensation, Zeitgeist, and it's 2008 successor, Zeitgeist: Addendum. While many people may find it hard to digest the idea of a world without currency, Joseph's argument that our economic system is the source of our greatest social problems was supported with valuable evidence", and goes on to explain in depth how Joseph's ideas have been developed by the movement. This citation was objected to on rather vague grounds [27]. I have subsequently cited a second source - TZM's own FAQ, which states: [28]

"While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.

While it is clear that we shouldn't use TZM material for claims about third parties, or for other controversial material, it seems perfectly reasonable to cite them for something that should be blindingly-obvious anyway - that Joseph's films have helped inspire the movement. Can I ask for confirmation here that either or both sources can be cited for the connection between the two? And If it is agred that TZM cannot be cited for this, can I ask whether it will be appropriate (as I assume it would be) to remove other material from the article which is cited to their own websites etc? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Huffington Post blogs are not RS and cannot be used to reference facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The claim that edit summary was vague seems to be innacurate: "source was checked, and did not contain the cited material. the only reference to the movie was "Peter Joseph, came to notoriety with his 2007 internet film". A different source is requested for this false claim.)"--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The official webpage can be used to makes claims about the subject as long as the are directly supportive of the material.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If the Huffington Post isn't RS, the article is going to need substantial trimming - it is cited multiple times, and is arguably the best source we have in terms of a broad outlook on TZM... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It probably is, but what is needed is to check the author and make sure the blog posts are being made by a reputable journalist and that the reference is attributed to both the author (if credentialed) and the publication, such as - "According to Huffington Post journalist "X"....."--Amadscientist (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for this discussion to better improve wikipedia, Amadscientist. May I point out that if AndyTheGrump had control over the article in question this is what he would change it to: [29] AndyTheGrump provided the following edit description: "Since nobody else gives a fuck about sourcing for this article..." Is there a way to block vandals from further disruptions? Is there a policy that prohibits moderators from vandalizing? Thank you once again for your input regarding this article. Zgoutreach (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the blog on Huffington Post. I see no evidence of expertise on the part of Travis Donovan to justify weighting their opinion in the slightest. I see no reason to believe that an op-ed blog by a non-expert was subject to editorial conditions that make is useable for political fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he is an executive editor at HP. Exactly what field would he be required to hold for use here? This is less about politics and more about a social movement based on a film in my opinion, but I would like to hear more from Fifelfoo as he may have a better point to make. The author isn't making any contentious claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is a Blog post (an op-ed) I'd expect him to hold a suitable position to comment on social movements: past social movement expert activist, social movement think tanker, sociologist, anthropologist, historian of relevant field, established social critique in news magazines. His editorial position (a journalistic skill) relates to products, not to social movements. If this were a news item my opinion would be different, it would be a journalist noting news in an apparently edited forum, but it is a blog post and an op-ed. Why should we care (WEIGHT) what a product editor thinks? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is heavily-reliant on two Hebrew-language sources, for which no translations are given for the relevant sections, as Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources would seem to suggest (or require for direct quotations). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Non English sources are not a violation of RS unless there are other sources in English of the same quality. I do not believe Wikipedia requires a translation persay, although it is recommended.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That is true per the letter of the policy. But don't you wonder why Hebrew (and Russian) sources are required for an English film made and released in America by an American director? That applies to the Huffington Post too; why is it that more established newspapers and magazines haven't covered it (after all, one Pulitzer doesn't a paper make)? Why is it that we need an article this long if higher-quality sources are just ignoring it? Churn and change (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly....I am not that interested to wonder, but perhaps it is because of an international angle. Isn't the movement widespread? I often wonder why HP is used so extensively, but as long as it has the required criteria, why not. I wouldsay a lot of these publications like HP are rather partisan and that always gives me pause.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that last sentence, and is the crux of my issue with HP. Churn and change (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Isn't the movement widespread?" If you believe TZM, yes. Objectively, what little evidence there is suggests that if it is spread wide, it is also spread very thinly - hence the almost complete lack of coverage in mainstream sources, and the reliance of the article on blogs and non-English sources for material giving any in-depth coverage. With regard to the Hebrew-language sources, I suspect that it was early accusations of antisemitism (unfounded, as far as I am aware) that initially led to interest in the movement from at least one of these sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Other Reliable Sources questions for this page

(note that this subheading was added after much of the material below was posted - hence the confusion over exactly what it was that was being discussed) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for wikipedia: HollywoodToday.net covers the Zeitgeist Movement Festival with articles here, here, and here. These sources were removed by "AndyTheGrump" with the edit summary: "revert unencyclopeadic puffery sourced to TZM" as seen on the page comparison here. Thank you for any input, since i'm not sure if HollywoodToday.net is reliable or not. Keep up the great work. Zgoutreach (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(Oh, and for information about HollywoodToday.net it can be found here About Us. That page includes the full list of dozens of editors, demographics and achievements "...Hollywood Today stories make the front page of Google News and often rank #1 in the entertainment section there, above stories from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Today headlines are read by more than 58 million readers through Google News...") Zgoutreach (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well...yes and no. The site appears to be a notable news source for Hollywood news [30] with what appears to be an appropriate level of editorial oversite....but as for the author of the HT Zeitgeist article itself, Bruce Lyons, I have my doubts to their being a journalist and this may actually be a film review. Harder to define in that context.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the material for the section 'Annual Zeitgeist Media Festival' added by Zgoutreach and deleted by me was sourced to HollywoodToday.net is simply false, regardless of the validity of that particular source - it was almost entirely sourced to TZMs own websites, as is self-evident from the diff: [31]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The main issue for me is the authorship as Mr. Lyons is a screenwriter and not a journalist from what I am finding. This may weaken the source quite a bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the much appreciated feedback, the first article is indeed by Bruce Lyons, the other articles are by Casey Kehoe, & Geoffrey Maingart respectively. The articles cover the August 5th, 2012 Media Festival, however and do not review a film. Is there a way to find out if these articles can be referenced, in order to state that a Medial Festival has taken place? (since all edits to state there was a media festival have been immediately reverted due to improper sourcing). Furthermore an Oct. 9th, 2012 article has been written here could this also be sourced if relevant to the wikipedia article? Thank you. Zgoutreach (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would handle Lyons as a review and attribute his claims to both him and the publication. It could be argued he has expertise in the subject. I have not looked at the other articles but check the authorship as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say no on Casey Kehoe as being non notable as an author. Kehoe is a cameraman.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? What is Bruce Lyons supposed to have 'expertise' on? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Film production would be a reasonable expertise.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And what has 'expertise in film production' got to do with our article on The Zeitgeist Movement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement holds annual film and media productions/festivals. (and as you stated, the movement is also inspired by films) Zgoutreach (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was asking Amadscientist the question. Our article is about a controversial political movement. It isn't about film festivals, and it certainly isn't about 'film production'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Expertise in producing a film does not translate into expertise on the subject of the film. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said it is a weak source, but it also has an author with some expertise on film prduction in a number of fields. Indeed, as Zgoutreach points out we are speaking specifically about a movement as inspired by the film. This could be used with consensus as attributed to the author and publication. (sorry so late on this. Went out to dinner) This is very much like OWS and we do not require OWS experts to reference, nor do we require Zeitgeist Movement "experts". There are a number of different subjects mixed here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "The movement was originally inspired by Peter Joseph's films Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008)." This is not a spontaneous movement. It has it's origins in a film production.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't about films, it is about a political movement. How hard is that to understand? Bruce Lyons has no apparent expertise in political movements. Neither is he writing for a publication which has any regular coverage of political movements. It is ridiculous to suggest that he can have any sort of 'expertise' on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the talkpage Grump. As I said, the claim it is being used to support does not require experts on the movement. A film expert can make this claim and it is reasonable to use. Whether it can be used in the article is a matter of local consensus. The political movement is pretty well known as having been inspired by the film.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Which claim is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The one the thread is about. It is repeated 4 posts up.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see - you have obviously not noticed that Zgoutreach changed the subject entirely - he asked whether hollywoodtoday.net was RS for a section he had introduced into the article on the 'Zeitgeist Movement Festival' - which, as I have already pointed out, is in fact mostly sourced to TZM themselves. And then he asked whether another article by Bruce Lyons could be used to source who-know-what - at which point you seemed to be indicating that because he was a film producer, he was some sort of expert. Extremely confusing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I said "it could be argued", and it can. Also you have called this a "political movement". Where is the source for this claim? I did a quick search and I don't think this can be called a political movement. [32] They do not refer to themselves in this manner. It may, in fact be OR to call them such. --Amadscientist (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The sky is blue. TZM's objective is to fundamentally change the global political and economic system. TZM is a political Movement.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll trust that you know more about the movement than I do.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is clear that there was a mutual misunderstanding here, caused initially by Zgoutreach's introduction of another sourcing question entirely, that renders this section of the discussion useless for determining the validity of HollywoodToday.net and of other material by Bruce Lyons to the article. If this is to be determined here, it will need a new thread, with a clear indication of what is being cited for what. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As for what is being cited for what: I request the article to simple state that an annual Zeitgeist Medial Festival has taken place, and state the date, and location(s). All past attempts to include this have been deleted due to a claim of improper sourcing. If the hollywoodtoday.net article by Lyons in question is acceptable to state the date and location of the festival then I'll include it, if not, I will not include it. Thank you once again for your help in this matter. And sorry if this has distracted from answers to your original question, Andy Zgoutreach (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Given your earlier false claim that the section you added was sourced only to hollywoodtoday.net article (which it self-evidently wasn't, as the diff shows [33]), can you make clear what exactly it is you wish to cite hollywoodtoday.net for - please provide the proposed text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I never claimed HollywoodToday.net was the only source delted from the article, agreed I also used additional sourcing which was likewise removed by you. Where did I make a false claim or state it was the ONLY source deleted?

As for the proposed text: "The 2nd Annual Zeitgeist Media Festival was held during the weekend of August 5th 2012 with the main event being held in Los Angeles, CA." I'm also up for other ways of wording it, if you like it worded differently I'm sure yours would be fine too. Thank you very much all, for all your consideration. Zgoutreach (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify which HollywoodToday.net article you are citing this to? You seem to have linked to three different articles above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The information would be referenced to the following HollywoodToday.net aricle by Bruce Lyons. The information can also be found on other HollywoodToday.net articles here, and here. In addition, the official website of the Zeitgeist Media Festival contains the information here. I have not searched for other sources yet, as I trust one of these may do. Thank you very much for any outside input.Zgoutreach (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you start searching for sources - the article you link is a long fawning (two part) interview with Peter Joseph, rather than any sort of objective journalism (see the long list of TZM links at the end of this HollywoodToday.net article [34] for evidence of their lack of journalistic standards). It looks to be little more than a blog anyway. And why do you think we would consider using TZM as a source on their own Festival? Nobody has given the slightest indication that this would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Andy, we already know you disapprove of these sources, that is why we are here in the first place to get another opinion. Please allow other input. Thank you Zgoutreach (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Andy, your clear vandalism to this article here, and again here, (where you deleted the entirety of the article, and replaced it with a vulgar rant), makes your non-NPOV towards this wikipedia article clear. Your continued reverting of changes has brought us here to look to outside opinion. I'm not convinced you should be allowed to further disrupt the editing of this article due to your history of vandalism on this page. AndyTheGrump, I ask that you please allow outside input at least to your citation concerns. Thank you kindly for your co-operation, Zgoutreach (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have any concerns over my behaviour, raise them elsewhere (though you will discover that the issue of that edit has already been raised, and dealt with - notably by topic-banning the individual most responsible for escalating the problem in the first place). And as for NPOV, I'm not the one trying to fill the article with poorly-sourced hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefuly others can help decide if it is "poorly-sourced" or not. Perhaps Amadscientist, or another respectable user would be so kind! :) (I've made the proposed text and references in bold above.) Thanks, Zgoutreach (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This one mention is not enough to establish notability for this festival. Amazing to see how little coverage it got in mainstream news sources. Compare with any ordinary minor local arts festival anywhere. Honestly. Choose a small town in any English speaking country. Google the town's name with "festival". See how the local press proudly covers the event(s). See how that's missing in this case. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

From browsing the zeitgeist article: the Z media festival is also mentioned a couple of times in the RT television interview, [35], which is a reliable source. Furthermore, towards the end of the interview, the TV screen is full of screen shots from the website of the Z media festival. best wishes, WinterWithFools (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of screenshots. Are you suggesting that a screenshot on a valid reliable source itself becomes valid in some way? That is an odd proposition to make. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And regarding the RT TV piece, it dates from September 2011. It cannot be a RS for the 2012 festival. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

iSahitya as a RS?

I'm writing because I want to get another opinion on this source: [36] The article appears to be well-written, but I'm not sure that it's usable as a reliable source. It's written by an admin, but if the site itself isn't a RS then I know that it won't be reliable regardless of who writes it. It would really go a long way towards helping out with an AfD for author Rashmi Singh, so I wanted to get a second opinion on it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The author/interviewer is a senior mechanical-engineering undergrad. The piece starts with sentences like "The Fallen Love, another fiction work released in March 2012." Yes, that is a full sentence in the original. The main site is shot with errors in article usage, parallel construction and the like ("we are growing company . . "). This is no RS for an article on an English-language novelist. Churn and change (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Carpet News TV and The Showbiz 411

I was considering using video interviews conducted by Red Carpet News TV (http://www.redcarpetnewstv.com/) and its corresponding Youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/RedCarpetNewsTV) and The Showbiz 411 youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/itn) on the Downton Abbey topic. I don't have any particular statements in mind -- I haven't even listened to these interviews yet and don't even know if there's anything useful -- but I'd like to know if they're RS beforehand.

The interviews by Red Carpet News TV are done by the site's staff members. Credentials at the site's about page say that founder Russell Nelson "is the UK correspondent for international film publication KinoPark magazine." I can't turn anything up on that, but as far as I can tell, it's Russian. I have no idea if [www.kinopark.kz/ KinoPark Multiplex Cinemas] is related as I cannot read Russian. I really didn't get anywhere on that. It appears he did work for Leicester Square TV (as claimed). He did camera work for Black Swan Press Conference, interviewed Ewen Bremner at the Perfect Sense premiere, a search turns up potentially more. Leicester Square TV, according to their very brief about us, is a part of PrimeTime International Ltd. The connection is also suggested by the PrimeTime logo linking to http://www.primetimeinternational.co.uk/ in the upper right of the site. I'm not entirely sure if this helps establish anything for the site, but there's something to consider.

The Showbiz 411 channel links to the Entertainment portion of ITN. That section in turn links to the ShowBiz 411 twitter feed, which links to the Youtube channel. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should waste your time. These sites are unlikely to reveal anything useful. However, if you do find something on them you think is essential for our article, then come back here with a more specific query. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Kalmyk & Yakut

I have questions about two seprate sources, and whether they fall under reliable sources. The first is the lone reference given for the article Yakut American.

• ЯКУТЫ РУССКОЙ АМЕРИКИ

The linked content appears to speak about the history of Russians in North America, but only mentions the word "Sakha" once. Is this a reliable source?

The second is one of two references in the article Kalmyk American.

• Kalmyk American Society

The linked content appears to be an organization that may are may not be notable in its own right, and used to verify that the subject exists. Is it a reliable source? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliablity of any source is dependent on the text it is being used to support. Can you include the text. [37] wouldn't count for notability as it's a WP:SPS, but that's a different question. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Yakut American article, the text being "verified" is:

Yakut first appeared in North America in the 19 century. They were mostly fishermen, hunters, carpenters. They now live mostly in Alaska, Oregon, and California. There are also some Yakut Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta as well as the Yukon territory

Not knowing how to read Russian, I am not sure if it is a reliable source. The text appears to only cover the ethnicities history in the Americas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't directly answer your question but there is some useful information on Kalmyks here. That book is from Rutgers University Press and is effectively a New Jersey State Government publication. You will find facts there. However, for things like controversies about the group, you will have to look elsewhere. This link also is an RS: an article from a member of the Mongolia Academy of Sciences. It is hosted at Indiana University. Churn and change (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Felix Baumgartner

I am hoping, and yes, IF, only if it happens, may I please use this source as a record for the article 2012, about this Felix Baumgartner diving into the earth with his own suit to break the sound barrier, an example source here from the Huffington Post, if possible whenever he does the performance, I hope to report this stunt for the record hopefully notably if requested.--GoShow (............................) 02:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If it goes ahead it will be notable enough to include. It will be reported in all the major news media. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As of now this is just sensationalist reporting, and should not be included, unless there are established newspapers reporting it. Churn and change (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been reported everywhere, as a possible event. And not in always in a sensationalist way. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. If there are established newspapers reporting it, we should cite those sources. On WP we should use the best-quality sources available, and, in this case, I see the New York Times reporting it. The example source, Huffington Post, should not be used. Churn and change (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RS for Filler (animal food)

1. I came directly here without first posting on the Filler (animal food) talk page, because that page seems inactive. Is 1800Petmeds an RS for the article? Specifically, the following paragraph from this website: "Various ingredients that provide little to no nutritional value, but are added in for dietary fiber. Common fillers found in pet food include corn bran, rice bran, oat hulls, cereal by-products, feathers, soybean hulls, cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, rice hulls, wheat mill run, citrus pulp, modified corn starch, weeds, and straw. Many foods also have corn, corn gluten, brewers rice, wheat gluten, soybean meal and rice protein. These ingredients are often used as plant-based sources of protein–cheaper sources of protein when compared to meat or fish. They are often given the name "filler" because they are used by pet food companies (instead of meat or fish) to "fill" up the bag of food with cheaper protein. The term filler is a misnomer, however, if filler is defined as a non-nutritive fiber source, because some of them do provide value. It is usually best to look for a pet food that is free of any fillers or cheaper sources of protein."

2. More generally, I'm having a hard time finding RS for the article. I tried (a) the website of the American Veterinary Association, (b) a general Google search, and (c) a search on Google Scholar, all without success. Admittedly I spent only about one hour in total on this and I may have found reliable sources if I would have spent more time, but I was hoping somebody here (a Veterinarian perhaps?) might have suggestions that may save me time. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not RS. And there may not actually be good sources for this content, so merger or deletion would be the only option. Articles on pet food should cover the contents of pet food. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Their website says: "Expert Ratings are created by a panel of experienced veterinarians, including renowned, board-certified Veterinary Internal Medicine Specialists." The one bio on their site is credible. The company is legit, though may not meet NPOV per what I see on the site. If you had invested in them in early 2000, your money would have gone up ten-fold by now. So, despite that large "Controversies" section in the Wikipedia article, they do have credibility; stock investors bolt at even a whiff of quackery. I realize Wikipedia guidelines say nothing of checking the stock market to vet a company but it nonetheless works well. As to the quoted material, seems straightforward and noncontroversial; is there a concrete objection to its accuracy? Again, no such objection is needed to object to the RS status itself, but still asking . . . Churn and change (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Judith, it seems merger and deletion were discussed on the article talk page and apparently the decision was to keep, among other reasons because this is an article on all animals and not only pets. (However, that discussion is more than 5 years old.) And thank you Churn for the feedback. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion went stale a long time ago, and the article's problems haven't been solved since then. My concern with this source is that a manufacturer has a vested interest in presenting a particular view of what to put in pet food. And the result is a mess. The reader has no way of deciding whether vegetable elements in pet food are useless and cynically added bulk, or necessary fibre. It must surely be very different for cat food and dog food, yet the article does not even go into that. Why do we think that this is a notable topic in its own right, separate from the content of pet food in general? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking the same question. It's a bit like having an article on Inert ingredients. You'll find lots of mentions, but very few sources treating the subject comprehensively. Futhermore, the line between "supplements" and "fillers" is very murky. Plus I agree that the source is not reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

trowelandsword.org.au

Is this source [38] reliable for this contested statement "The ACL states it has three main functions: Supporting politicians who uphold Christian values, lobbying and thirdly informing, educating and activating Christians." on the article, Australian Christian Lobby. The source has been contested several times by a user, recently on the grounds that the source is biased and too promotional (as you can see, at the bottom of the article is says **For more information on the Australian Christian Lobby, or to become a supporter, head to ..." Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

T&S appears to be much more of a "newsletter of puff piece opinions and promotions " without any fact checking and not "journalism" or peer review of any kind. But is there any reason to doubt that the T&S is misquoting the ACL's purposes? Why wouldnt you use the ACL's own website as a source for their functions? Are there other sources that describe the functions of the ACL differently? If so the article should present them all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)